Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Era Might]

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim.  This has already been proven in the US.

 

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

 

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

 

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.

 

 

This, I think, is a root issue, that the role of guns in our society is as much a matter of philosophy of technology as anything else. And not everyone accepts that the proliferation of cars in society has been a positive. Rather, like guns, they are counterproductive to their imagined purpose.

 

The proliferation of cars and guns are both tied to an industrial society that did not exist in the 18th century, and the logic of such a society is very different. I tend to agree with you that "you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence," although I agree probably for different reasons, and I do not rule out the necessity of regulation. To me, the proliferation of armed violence tied up with the industrial violence of the modern state, and thus I do not buy into the Conservative solution that militarizing the people is an antidote, because that's a solution based on an imaginary society that does not actually exist.

 

Jacques Ellul has some interesting thoughts that are relevant to the current Conservative veneration of the 18th century:

 

 

[quote]Technique  has  rendered traditional  democratic  doctrines  obso­lete. This  should be  regarded  as a normal  situation, for no political doctrine is eternal. 'When situations  change, doctrines must change too.  Evolution  is  necessary,  whether  it  takes  place under  the  in­fluence of  technique  or in  some other way. But one fact does  seem new: what is in question is not merely a  change of doctrine; politi­cal doctrine is being  called upon  to play a  fundamentally different role.  In the nineteenth century, political doctrine was  strongly pre­scriptive and constitutive;  this was  consonant both with  the whole idealist  and  romantic  movement  and  with  the  belief  in  progress. Men were  convinced  of  the  omnipotence  of  ideas  and  were  pre­pared to put into  action  doctrines  which  appeared  to  them  to  be just.  Doctrinal  motives  played  a  role of prime  importance  in  the Revolution of 1789.  Napoleon  I  was disgraced because  of his lack of doctrine,  a  deficiency which Napoleon  III  sought to  overcome. Republics  and  even  monarchies were  anxious  to  apply that doc­trine which was most just. Political doctrine, whatever  its  content, established  an  end  to be  attained.  It represented  the  best form  of government, founded in reason ( rather than in history)  and in phi­losophy.  The  problem  was  to  realize  the  ideal.  Doctrine  was  the criterion of action; it was the judge not so much of whether  the ac­tion was well or ill done as of whether the action was valid with re­spect  to the doctrine itself.  Even Marx was  of  this mind;  for him also,  doctrine  represented  the  end  and  criterion  of  action.  Mani­festly, doctrine dominated political life; it was no mere conceit but 

a reality.

 

With  the  introduction  of  technical  development into  the  life  of the  state,  the  situation  becomes  completely  different; doctrine  merely  explicative  and  justifying.  It no  longer  represents  the  end; the end is defined by the autonomous operation of techniques.  It is no longer the criterion of action;  the sole criterion of action consists in knowing whether or not technique has been correctly used,  and no political theory can tell us that.

 

Political doctrine,  since  about  1914, works in  this way:  the  state is forced by the operation of its own proper techniques to  form  its doctrine of government on the basis of technical necessities. These necessities  compel  action  in  the  same way that techniques  permit it.  Political theory comes  along to explain  action  in  its  ideological aspect and in its practical aspect  ( frequently without indicating its purely technical motives ) .  Finally, political doctrine intervenes to justify action and to show that it corresponds to ideals and to moral principles.  The man  of the  present  feels  a  great  need  for  justifica­tion.  He needs the  conviction  that  his  government  is  not only  effi­cient  but  just.  Unfortunately,  efficiency  is  a  fact  and  justice  a slogan.

 

--Jaqcues Ellul, "The Technological Society"[/quote]

[Anomaly]

Good post, Era.

 

Boils down to a caution of being careful of getting what the dream you wished for, it's not neccesarily what you wanted in application.

 

Kinda like the kids who asked the magician for wings.  Got them and said "I'm an angel!"  The magician said "No, you're a buzzard.".

[Anomaly]

Good post, Era.

 

Boils down to a caution of being careful of getting what the dream you wished for, it's not neccesarily what you wanted in application.

 

Kinda like the kids who asked the magician for wings.  Got them and said "I'm an angel!"  The magician said "No, you're a buzzard.".

[4588686]

The reallity is, restricting certain types of guns have no real effect on people's ability to kill and maim.  This has already been proven in the US.

 

 

Whe was that proven and how?

 

 

The reallity is, you aren't going to reduce the number of guns in the US because of the hundreds of millions already in existence and the fact we have a legally established fundamental right to them.

 

The uncomfortable reality is that more innocent people (children) are killed from devices such as cars.

 

If the intent is to protect children and save lives, there are more effective ways of accomplishing this without resulting to emotional, ineffective, unworkable actions that defy reason.

 

Which is why cars are regulated to great effect.  Everything is unworkable until somebody does it.  We could clean up a lot of guns pretty easily and it is within the powers of the government to do things to cripples the arms industry.  Will they?  Probably not.  But it is a choice.  

[eagle_eye222001]

You're appealing to something outside the Constitution? Whose interpretation of the constitution, or extra-constitutional notes, matter? Yours? The government's?

 

The founding fathers of the Constitution.  Their opinion, their intentions carry the most weight as they were the ones who started everything.  A Supreme Court deciding on how to interpret the Constitution was not envisioned by the Founders nor directed to make the pronouncements it does today as it basically invented that "right."

 

According to guncite.com

 

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

 

 

 

 

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

 

 

 

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

 

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29,

 

 

 

 

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 

Further analysis on "militia" and "well regulated."

 

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#MI

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site has loads more to say, but I have found it to be a great resource in understanding what the 2nd Amendment really means and why it is so critical to protect it and follow it.

[Era Might]

The founding fathers of the Constitution.  Their opinion, their intentions carry the most weight as they were the ones who started everything.  A Supreme Court deciding on how to interpret the Constitution was not envisioned by the Founders nor directed to make the pronouncements it does today as it basically invented that "right."

 

So if I can't trust the government, I should trust a website on the Internet? I'm not asking you to prove your interpretation of the Second Amendment, simply asking who decides these things. What if I disagree with you about the meaning of the Second Amendment, and I advocate laws based on my interpretation.

 

Happened to watch this the other day, you might be interested, an author on CSPAN talking about what he calls the "Frankenfounder" myth, the homogenization of the Founding Fathers into a single mind. He also suggests that the Founders has become a sort of quasi-religious document for some people and interpreted the way they interpret the Bible:

 

http://www.booktv.org/Program/14131/After+Words+Michael+Austin+Thats+Not+What+They+Meant+Reclaiming+the+Founding+Fathers+from+Americas+Right+Wing+hosted+by+David+Fontana+George+Washington+University+Law+School.aspx

[eagle_eye222001]

So if I can't trust the government, I should trust a website on the Internet? I'm not asking you to prove your interpretation of the Second Amendment, simply asking who decides these things. What if I disagree with you about the meaning of the Second Amendment, and I advocate laws based on my interpretation.

 

Happened to watch this the other day, you might be interested, an author on CSPAN talking about what he calls the "Frankenfounder" myth, the homogenization of the Founding Fathers into a single mind. He also suggests that the Founders has become a sort of quasi-religious document for some people and interpreted the way they interpret the Bible:

 

http://www.booktv.org/Program/14131/After+Words+Michael+Austin+Thats+Not+What+They+Meant+Reclaiming+the+Founding+Fathers+from+Americas+Right+Wing+hosted+by+David+Fontana+George+Washington+University+Law+School.aspx

 

 

The website provides citations for its quotes. :|  If you just dismiss something even with citations, then you really can't trust anything and the issue of the 2nd Amendment is hardly the real matter of concern.

 

Basically, does it make more sense to base a reference on the starting point of something, or on your own?  Again, the 2nd Amendment is immaterial at this point.  We could be debating anything.....let's say the Bible.  Why should I interpret the Bible in light of the Church that compiled it as opposed to me just opening it and deciding for myself?

 

Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out when I get an opportunity.

[Era Might]

The website provides citations for its quotes. :|  If you just dismiss something even with citations, then you really can't trust anything and the issue of the 2nd Amendment is hardly the real matter of concern.

 

Basically, does it make more sense to base a reference on the starting point of something, or on your own?  Again, the 2nd Amendment is immaterial at this point.  We could be debating anything.....let's say the Bible.  Why should I interpret the Bible in light of the Church that compiled it as opposed to me just opening it and deciding for myself?

 

Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out when I get an opportunity.

 

The government is not the church, and politics is not theology. Politics is about finding the best ways to live in society, in world that changes.

 

I am not dismissing anything, but your interpretation of things is probably going to be different from mine. In which case, who decides?

 

To me, the guiding principle of politics is the here and now, not trying to construct an ideology out of a document written 250 years ago. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

 

That is not to say I am uninterested in the legal details of these debates. But that is not what motivates me. I do not want to disarm every last person in the country, because that's not going to solve the problem anymore than our prison system solves the problem of crime. But I also don't look at laissez-faire anarchy as a solution, either. There are ways to be creative with law to address problems that we have.

 

Ultimately, I don't take a worshipful attitude toward the law. I do not lose sleep because people have guns, but neither do I lose sleep because people immigrate illegally, or join gangs, or jaywalk. I do not believe in painting everything with a broad criminalizing brush...society is human, and I think the point of politics and law should be to accommodate humanity as much as possible.

 

Trying to live by a purist interpretation of a document from the 18th century is like trying to follow the Mosaic law the same way they did in ancient Israel. It doesn't work. Society did not begin or end in the 18th century.

[Anomaly]

Whe was that proven and how?

 

 

 

Which is why cars are regulated to great effect.  Everything is unworkable until somebody does it.  We could clean up a lot of guns pretty easily and it is within the powers of the government to do things to cripples the arms industry.  Will they?  Probably not.  But it is a choice.  

 

You are more intelligent than that.

Regulate cars to great effect?

 

Go to the CDC.  Under 18 children are more thant 5 times likely to be killed by vehicles than a person under 25 (includes 'gang-bangers') is likely to be killed by a fire arm (intentional and accidental).

 

Why do we have high performance sports cars that exceed safe speed limits that endanger everyone traveling on the road? 

 

To equivocate guns and car regulation and the desire to save or protect children, consider what is more likely to kill a child by a factor of +5.  There's roughly an equivelant number of cars as there are guns, definitely not 5 times as many cars.

 

Gun laws only restrict legal access to guns.  Considering you cannot take 250 million guns away from US Citizens, gun laws are not going to have a significant effect in removing guns from US Society.

 

It's complete BS to say that new gun laws were/are/or will be effective in saving a significant number of children's lives.  Children are endangered in a school by anyone with intent to do them harm.  Gun laws are lies that are appeasing emotions of the masses, a political ploy for power and aggrandization, or a manipulation to show how nice a person you are.

[4588686]

The government is not the church, and politics is not theology. Politics is about finding the best ways to live in society, in world that changes.

 

I am not dismissing anything, but your interpretation of things is probably going to be different from mine. In which case, who decides?

 

To me, the guiding principle of politics is the here and now, not trying to construct an ideology out of a document written 250 years ago. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

 

That is not to say I am uninterested in the legal details of these debates. But that is not what motivates me. I do not want to disarm every last person in the country, because that's not going to solve the problem anymore than our prison system solves the problem of crime. But I also don't look at laissez-faire anarchy as a solution, either. There are ways to be creative with law to address problems that we have.

 

Ultimately, I don't take a worshipful attitude toward the law. I do not lose sleep because people have guns, but neither do I lose sleep because people immigrate illegally, or join gangs, or jaywalk. I do not believe in painting everything with a broad criminalizing brush...society is human, and I think the point of politics and law should be to accommodate humanity as much as possible.

 

Trying to live by a purist interpretation of a document from the 18th century is like trying to follow the Mosaic law the same way they did in ancient Israel. It doesn't work. Society did not begin or end in the 18th century.

 

 

 

Hey......

 

 

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

 

 

Hmmmm.....

[4588686]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol

[Winchester]

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

 

I would, too. The Church hasn't a charism of infallibility in that regard. Funny how there's no solemn definition of the method of becoming a "public authority". I used that line, before, back when I believed that the State was magic. Most statists will never admit the lack of information is a problem--they just assume the legitimacy of our current government. Well, except with abortion. That's bad. But killing people over sawed-off shotguns...common good.

[Winchester]

It says authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. I'm not saying I agree with the endless laws in place. I will say, however, that authorities do have the duty to make sure that gun ownership doesn't infringe on the right to life. If that means going through a background check, so be it.  If that means keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the public, bring it on (like anyone besides the military needs those kinds of guns. Guns are for killing, plain and simple.)

 

 

 

 

 

Not really worried about the public, for some reason. It's the State that has shown  to be the most effective mass murderer and violator of human dignity.

 

"Ownership" does not interfere with the right to life. And my right to life doesn't end because I have a magazine that holds 11 rounds within some political boundary.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

 

 

Not really worried about the public, for some reason. It's the State that has shown  to be the most effective mass murderer and violator of human dignity.

 

"Ownership" does not interfere with the right to life. And my right to life doesn't end because I have a magazine that holds 11 rounds within some political boundary.

 

I do not think I have seen that first picture before. What is it from?

[Winchester]

I do not think I have seen that first picture before. What is it from?

 

The Wounded Knee Protection of the Common Good by Public Authorities.